The following document is irrefutable, but let us note once again that it was not De Gaulle who created John XXIII, but rather Benedict XVI, whom we should not hesitate to describe as Judas II, since he sold out the Church to protect his own interests so that, as he himself said shortly before his death, he would not have any problems with anyone.
"Archivum Historiae Pontificiae, Vol. 40 (2002), pp. 323–324
BERTRAND DE MARGERIE, S.J.
THE POSSIBLE ROLE OF GENERAL DE GAULLE
AND HIS AMBASSADOR
IN THE ELECTION OF BLESSED JOHN XXIII?
I have before me the autobiographical notes of my father, Roland de Margerie (who died in 1990). He had been ambassador to the Vatican since 1956 when Pope Pius XII died on 9 October 1958.
For many years, the major newspapers and press agencies had appointed contacts within the papal palace to keep them informed of the Supreme Pontiff’s state of health.
A whole system of signals (gestures, signs) behind the windows of Castel Gandolfo had been devised. Hour by hour, and even more frequently in the event of an acute crisis, correspondents could follow the events. Bribes to minor figures in the Vatican chancellery were also planned. This venality had even infected Professor Galéazzi Lisi, the Holy Father’s personal physician. His behaviour appeared so scandalous throughout this period that the medical association ruined his career!
As soon as Pius XII died, my father took care to send a telegram to the Quai d’Orsay setting out the problems that the election of his successor would pose for France. What qualities would be essential for France in the future pope, and what flaws would be deal-breakers? We had to hope for a Pope ‘who was not politically beholden to anyone, fully aware of the role played by France in the world and in the Church, anxious to avoid any conflict between Church and State, and who therefore understood the needs of the latter, as well as the problems of the Church in France, and whose views on doctrine and authority do not encourage conflict between the Papacy and French public opinion’.”
From this perspective, several Italian cardinals had to be ruled out. That left Cardinal Lercaro, who was highly regarded but seemed impulsive, and Monsignor Montini, Archbishop of Milan, though not a cardinal; and thus had no chance of being elected, though he could serve as the next Pope’s Secretary of State; and Cardinal Roncalli, who knew the Christian East through his apostolic delegations to Sofia and Ankara, and France through his long tenure as nuncio in Paris.
On 11 October, General de Gaulle had my father flown from Rome to Paris in his presidential aircraft to brief him on the Conclave. There was no obvious choice, unlike in 1939, when Cardinal Pacelli was elected. But an authoritarian pope had to be avoided. De Gaulle said, word for word: ‘I do not want a tempestuous Pope’ and again: ‘We need a pope whose reign does not last too long and who paves the way, for the future, for the great pope that Monsignor Montini could become. For the future holds tragedy. A third world war may be inevitable. In that scenario, it is essential that the Church be led by a man on whom the Western world can rely in the midst of turmoil.” The General returned to this apocalyptic prospect on several occasions.
Conclusion: among the various possible candidates, the General considered it desirable to appoint an ‘honest old man’ (those were his words), who would take Monsignor Montini as Secretary of State. Among them, Monsignor Roncalli featured prominently. The General authorised my father to convey these considerations to the French cardinals and to set them out in general terms to the foreign cardinals and ambassadors.
Clearly, in his view, it was impossible for the election of a Pope to take place without France having its say, even though it bore no direct responsibility.
In the days that followed, my father spoke with the ambassadors of Germany, Portugal, Spain and Belgium: none of them had received the slightest instruction from their governments. Not even the Spaniard! They were interested in what was being said in Paris: our general reflections did not yet reflect individual preferences but were limited to an overview of what the Papacy represented for the free world, with hopes for the future in favour of Monsignor Montini.
As the Protestant Mr Couve de Murville, Minister for Foreign Affairs, confirmed, ‘the General was passionate about the Conclave’, to the point of asking his staff for the full text of my father’s telegrams. Without claiming that this entire campaign by the General and my father played a decisive role among the cardinal electors, it at least confirms the impression that Catholic statesmen and diplomats, whether believers or non-believers, can become, in the hands of a Providence that governs universal history and even individuals, useful instruments. Providence has its own ends, and it willed what neither the one nor the other could have guessed: the election of John XXIII with a view to the realisation of an ecumenical council oriented towards Christian unity and the renewal of the Church, notably through the importance given to the laity."
(Source: comments 3 and 4)